On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:

That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive.

I do. In my model of reality all matter is full of sensitive monads,
Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds,
each perceiving all other monads instantly,

How? And where does the Calabi-Yau CM come from?

That is just simple string theory. You know that don't you?

Sure. But where does the string comes from? Where does QM comes from. With comp we cannot point on any experiment in physics and say look. That's the UDA point. We can only search the explanation in our head, or better, in the head of the "universal" machine/number.

It seems to me that perception is a process (unlike consciousness, despite
strong relation). As a "physical" process, it can't be simultaneous.

Here i was making a pun with the perception of Liebniz's monads
who claim to be able to perceive the entire universe however with some
fuzziness. I could have well used the reflection of all the jewels in
Indras pearls or the 1/r mapping of the Calabi-Yau Compact manifolds.

I agree that perception is a algorithmic process.

We apparently disagree on how simultaneous the process can be.
I claim instant processing based on it being a frictionless BEC
where thoughts are instantaneous.

But string theory is supposed to marry QM and relativity. I have no notion of "instantaneous" in that context.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to